shipofthesun:CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.

The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.

So no matter what we find on Mars, or any other planet, evolutionary theory is wrong because...you say so? I would just like to point out the methane plumes that have been found with no sign of chemical origin, and the fact that the rovers and all probes are cleanroom bacteria and virus free, and...aw, who am I kidding? You lack the capacity to understand the most basic of scientific ideas, dismissing them out of hand, or you are a troll, either way, get up, take off all your clothes, and go lie down in field. Every single other thing in your life is based on science, and the true faith based approach involves some lilies and a field, if I'm not mistaken. So go, and be true.

Differing Assumptions

The main difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. This is the nature of observational science. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.

But historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. This is because we do not have access to the past; it is gone. All that we have is the circumstantial evidence (relics) of past events. Although we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from things like fossils and rocks, we cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. Furthermore, since creationists and evolutionists have very different views of history, it is not surprising that they reconstruct past events very differently. We all have the same evidence; but in order to draw conclusions about what the evidence means, we use our worldview-our most basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Since they have different starting assumptions, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence to mean very different things.

Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of evolution. We've seen in this book that the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. We've seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global Flood-not millions of years of gradual deposition. We've seen that the changes in DNA are consistent with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities of genetic information required by molecules-to-man evolution. Real science confirms the Bible.

Real Scientists

It shouldn't be surprising that there have been many real scientists who believed in biblical creation. Consider Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. Newton had profound knowledge of, and faith in, the Bible. Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account. So also did the Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno (1631-1686), who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.

Even in the early 19th century when the idea of millions of years was developed, there were prominent Bible-believing English scientists, such as chemists Andrew Ure (1778-1857) and John Murray (1786?-1851), entomologist William Kirby (1759-1850), and geologist George Young (1777-1848). James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell's equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution. These and many other great scientists have believed the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and it was their Christian faith that was the driving motivation and intellectual foundation of their excellent scientific work.......................

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. This is not to say that noncreationists cannot be scientists. But, in a way, an evolutionist is being inconsistent when he or she does science. The big bang supporter claims the universe is a random chance event, and yet he or she studies it as if it were logical and orderly. The evolutionist is thus forced to borrow certain creationist principles in order to do science. The universe is logical and orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible. On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the byproducts of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true.

bobbette:Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.

Besides the fact that nothing I posted was done with any amount of conviction or belief in its truth or validity: Tautological reasoning - valid or no?

Science without religion is bound to kill youWhy do you need religion to be a moral being ? Many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Hebraic et al ) have committed more than their fair share of immorality over the centuries. If you live by a philosophy that teaches you to respect others you will live a reasonably moral life.You don't have to belong to a religion to find that philosophy.

zeph`:Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

If the person can post the corresponding image to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument, it is reasonable to assume the person does understand what is incorrect in the argument and is merely using an abbreviated response; explanations of proper logic to those who use faulty logic are inevitably long and repetitious and devolve into tangents which are common amongst most proffering misinformation.

Vangor:If the person can post the corresponding image to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument

Sure, but constructing a valid counter-argument that proves the negation of the conclusion of the original argument is far more forceful. Pointing out logical fallacies does nothing to deny a fallacious argument's conclusion, only to point out (correctly) that that conclusion is not directly entailed by the premises - the truth or falsity of the conclusion remains unestablished.

zeph`:bobbette: Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.

Besides the fact that nothing I posted was done with any amount of conviction or belief in its truth or validity: Tautological reasoning - valid or no?

Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.

Befuddled:So if an intelligent designer made the whole universe, why did he bother making anything other than the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon? Couldn't we do quite nicely without all the rest of that stuff which makes up far and away the vast majority of the observable universe? It's not like we have any real hope of reaching any other inhabitable planets as the distances are just too great. Wouldn't God's chosen beings be better off without comets and asteroids which have the potential to wipe out all life on Earth?

Or viruses, or scoliosis, or flat feet, or headaches, or ________ (you name it).

idsfa:I haven't had time to make a good "weasel words" graphic. Your response was clearly directed at me, so your attempt to legitimize your failed argument also fails.

The observation isn't flawed though, and my comment didn't attempt to legitimize my obviously ridiculous arguments. Pointing out that you do not conform to my observation when I made the non-universality of my observation explicit does nothing.

zeph`:Pointing out logical fallacies does nothing to deny a fallacious argument's conclusion, only to point out (correctly) that that conclusion is not directly entailed by the premises - the truth or falsity of the conclusion remains unestablished.

True; the problem is you were using logical arguments to reach conclusions. If the logic is faulty the conclusion is therefore void. This says nothing to the veracity of the conclusion specifically, only that it is not yet true. However, claims which are not supported are, by default, false as a matter of practicality and necessity.

zeph`:The observation isn't flawed though, and my comment didn't attempt to legitimize my obviously ridiculous arguments. Pointing out that you do not conform to my observation when I made the non-universality of my observation explicit does nothing.

zeph`:Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.

Just an observation.

So is he supposed to invent a new logical fallacy or something? Your post hit every single one of the logical fallacies listed. Do you know WHY your arguments are the logical fallacies listed? Because they are.

Allow me:

1. The odds of a god existing are vanishingly small but positive.

The odds of a god existing are 0. Now our premises can never be accepted by each other. Discussion over. Neither premise can be deduced or otherwise elucidated. The only advantage my statement has is that things that are not shown to exist can be said to not exist. That doesn't mean that this statement is immutable, just that they don't exist now. What you are saying is that there is some sort of reason that a god NECESSARILY HAS TO exist. This needs defending. Show your work.

2. Given infinite time anything with a positive chance of occurring will occur.

Define how something can be determined to have a positive chance of occurring. After that, explain why something MUST BE if it MIGHT BE, given time. And of course how much time is the key. Infinity is not a real concept for practical application. Is a billion years enough for everything deemed to have a "positive chance" to happen? A trillion? A quadrillion? How much time until I can have slippery shower sex with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Christina Ricci and Monica Bellucci?

3. A god will exist after a certain period of time.

I am not sure if this is more begging the question or affirmation of the consequent, but either way, we have not shown God to exist based on the previous items, therefore we cannot accept this item.

4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.

This is just made up crap. Show your work. It's also circular, hence begging the question.

5. A god exists currently.

This becomes a bare assertion simply because nothing has been demonstrated.

I don't disagree with you. At all. As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument. I don't deny that they're useful, just that they're overplayed - if you really wanted to demonstrate any understanding of the topic you'd attempt to show how not only is my logic awful, but my conclusion actively false.

CDP:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations...

CDP, this would be the most hilarious troll if there weren't people who really think like this. Please stop trolling and encouraging them. It's disheartening.

My blood pressure went up 20% from reading this thread. So full of stupid. So full of fail.

Please, please, I am begging you Christians. Admit to yourself that the gig is up. We won't judge you for believing. Just stop spouting nonsense.

CDP:The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Oh goodie, an argument.Okay, so according to your bla bla, the eye is the result of intelligent design. Alright, I propose we hunt down the engineer and string them up from a tall tree.

Why? Here goes: who the heck designs an eye that is(a) backward - this is where the receptors are,(b) totally blind - why we need lenses, ore lenses and eyeball jelly, and then(c) transmits the darned pictures upside-down?

If that's an example of intelligent design, I'd hate to see the prototype.

ID is an idiots' way of explaining anything and everything by pointing their finger in the sky and saying, "it came from there," then painting all manner of superstitions, rules and what-not.

Have I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?

I want to take a shot at this, but before I do, what exactly is the use of the tilde signifying here? As I see it now, I think I have an error in the reasoning that invalidates the conclusion, but I'm unsure.

gimpols1908:CDPThe planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.

So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...

But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?

Evolutionists insist that it took millions, even billions of years for life to evolve from non-life. But we must remember that this is an either-or situation, much like a toggle switch. Something is either living or dead. If evolution is true, then this transition must have happened one time in the past, and it would have taken place in an instant, not millions of years. Scientists should then be able to duplicate this event, and show that it was a spontaneous occurrence. Why haven't they been able to do so, especially since this might be one way they could falsify the creation hypothesis? All they need to do is to take off-the-shelf dead chemicals, create life from them, and show that this transition is spontaneous and takes place as a normal course of events given a scenario for the origin of the earth.

This arena is a philosophical wasteland given our current knowledge of molecular biology. The molecules that make up life are incredibly complex, using amino acids, bases and sugars as an alphabet to code a monstrous object-oriented computer program that constructs the materials making up living systems. All life consists of this same basic underlying design, and all life has the same degree of complexity even at the basic cellular level. Consider that the technology that makes the bumblebee fly is much more sophisticated that a Boeing 747, and it is reduced down to operate at the molecular level. Our most advanced computers have not achieved that yet. The task of trying to constructing these systems chemically breaks down at the most simple level. The reagents needed to produce sugars used in DNA conflicts with the reagents needed to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. When these are formed artificially, equal mixtures of two isomers are formed, yet both sugars and amino acids use only one isomer. There is no wonder that attempts at creating life in a test tube from non-life results in nothing but burnt amino acids.

Here's another experiment you can try. Squash a hundred bugs, put the entrails in a test tube, mix it up and produce life from the chemicals. All of the tough chemistry is already done for you there, why can't you bring it to life? It appears that life is much more than merely physics and chemistry; it is a creation of God! The only escape from this is to hide behind millions of years of trial and error. This is an invalid argument. Since biological chemicals break down much more easily that they are constructed, time becomes an enemy to evolution. This problem is reflected at the species level: extinction occurs much more readily than the origin of new species. The chemistry of life toggles the switch immediately to the off position once death occurs. The off position is permanent and irreversible. If evolutionists want us to accept their theory, they need to demonstrate a scenario where cold, dead chemicals can be sparked to life. I've tried that. All you get is brown sticky goo.

Vangor:ninjakirby: I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.

I absolutely love this one. My nerdom practically rages at all of the problems associated with this, at least according to 3.5 rules. Not locating a trap doesn't automatically trigger it, DMs don't "declare" people dead, any person attached to their character probably has someone in party capable of resurrection or the ability to pay a priest elsewhere, poisons don't do damage, she'd get a reflex roll from any sort of poisonous trap anyway, yadda yadda yadda.

I've killed people outright like that and seen other GMs do it as well, but it take serious player stupidity for that to happen, of the "I wedge myself in the giant roller trap trusting that my indestructible link mail will protect me!" variety.

Plus, even if no one could res, or the res failed (I dunno, can that still happen in 3.5?) rendering the PC irrevocably dead...

"Okay, start rerolling and we'll get your new PC hooked up with the group the next time they're in town.""Can I have a +2 dagger like Black Leaf had?""No."

ninjakirby:Renart: ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.

[Satanic D&D Ritual Panel]

Easily my favorite Chick tract!

This is my favorite panel from that tract:

I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.

The devil is very real to Jack Chick, and is constantly coming up with new schemes (rock and roll, D&D, the fossil record) to ensnare us!

This one's good, too:

Help! I can't tell whether I'm an eighth-level cleric named "Elfstar" or a junior high school student!

zeph`:Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument

Do you think people who actually use faulty logic care about any amount of discussion with regards to a topic? I find the images to be a useful manner of mockery which simply say the argument is not worth discussing because the argument is invalid at its core. Regardless of the validity of information, the conclusion is still not reached, so why argue the information?

If I make a faulty assertion where someone denotes a fallacy, via image or otherwise, I have two options; I may either accept my argument as fallacious and attempt to reach my conclusion via another argument or I can explain why the fallacy does not apply. By default, conclusions do not stand because the opposite conclusion would therefore automatically stand and be contradictory, obviously.